Where (1) a defendant was tried in the Superior Court, convicted of several offenses and sentenced, (2) the Appellate Division of the Superior Court modified one of his three sentences and (3) the commonwealth’s G.L.c. 211, §3 petition challenging the Appellate Division's decision was denied by a single justice of the SJC, the single justice committed no clear error of law or abuse of discretion.

Where (1) a Superior Court judge required a criminal defendant to wear a global positioning system (GPS) device as a condition of his pretrial release on bail and (2) the defendant sought relief from that order pursuant to G.L.c. 211, §3, his appeal from a single justice’s decision to deny the §3 petition must be dismissed as moot in light of the fact that the defendant has been convicted and is no longer released on bail.

Where the defendant was convicted of murder and now makes several claims arising from his trial pertaining to (1) the selection of the jury, (2) communications between the judge and members of the jury, (3) the admission and exclusion of evidence, (4) the jury instructions and (5) the ineffective assistance of his counsel, all of the defendant’s claims must be rejected and he is not entitled to reversal of the convictions or a new trial.

Where a single justice of the SJC denied a defendant’s motion for leave to pursue an interlocutory appeal from a Superior Court’s denial of the defendant’s suppression motion, the single justice’s order is not subject to review.

Where two witnesses sought relief under G.L.c. 211, §3, from Superior Court orders granting them immunity pursuant to G.L.c. 233, §§20C-20E, and ordering them to testify in the criminal trial of two defendants, an order of a single justice denying the petition must be affirmed on the ground that the witnesses have not shown that they cannot obtain adequate relief from the challenged orders in the normal process of appellate review.

Where a criminal case was remanded by the U.S. Supreme Court to determine whether the decision in McDonald v. Chicago, 130 S. Ct. 3020 (2010), requires the dismissal of three indictments charging a defendant under G.L.c. 269, §10(h)(1) with possession of a firearm and ammunition without an FID card, the statute’s requirement of “prior approval by a government officer” before one may possess ammunition or a firearm does not violate the Second Amendment.

Where a petitioner charged in a criminal case has requested reversal of a single justice’s decision denying his petition from a court order requiring him to provide a DNA sample, no reversal is warranted, as the petitioner has improperly set forth an argument not presented to the single justice.

Where a medical malpractice complaint was amended to include a claim for wrongful death, the wrongful death claim should not have been dismissed as time-barred pursuant to the statute of repose (G.L.c. 260, §4).